Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council (202121999)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121999

Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council

26 February 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of repairs, and the associated decant.
2. Complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord in a 1 bedroom first floor flat, and his tenancy started in June 2005. The landlord does not have any recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.

Summary of events

Following the resident raising concerns about ongoing repair issues in his flat, the landlord temporarily decanted him to a hotel on 4 December 2021.
The resident emailed the landlord on 29 December 2021, and asked for an update on the repairs needed at his property. The landlord responded on 30 December 2021, and said:
1. It would repair the walls in the kitchen and leave them in a condition to “take tiles”.
2. It would remove the water meter to improve access.
3. It would do electrical testing, and complete any remedial works identified by the test.
4. It could discuss the repairs needed when it visited his property on 4 January 2022, and it hoped works would start on 4/5 January 2022.
The landlord inspected the resident’s property on 4 January 2022 to identify the works needed. It followed up with an email to the resident on the same day, and said it would remove the boiler so the kitchen walls could be returned to the original state. It said its contractor would be overseeing the remainder of the works.
The resident emailed the landlord on 5 January 2022 and asked it to confirm all repairs that were agreed at the meeting. The landlord responded on the same day and asked, as the resident had recorded the meeting, him to provide a transcript of what repairs were agreed. The resident responded on the same day stating it was not his responsibility to outline what was agreed, adding the officer in attendance had taken notes.
The landlord responded on 7 January 2022 and said it would complete the following works within 15 working days:
1. Remove boiler and set aside.
2. Electrical safety test.
3. Remedial work from electrical safety check.
4. Hack back walls to original state.
5. Complete electrical and mechanical first fix.
6. Ensure batons in place to fix wall units.
7. Plasterboard walls.
8. Skim Plaster and mist coat.
9. Kitchen installation.
10. Electrical and mechanical second fix.
11. Reinstate boiler.
12. Skim plaster to all damaged areas around skirting boards and door frames.
13. Snagging.
The resident emailed the landlord on 11 January 2022 and said that he was not satisfied with its response. He said it was not a “full list” of the works that were agreed. The landlord logged the resident’s email as a formal complaint, and sent its response on 13 January 2021, and said:
1. It confirmed the works agreed at the meeting on 4 January 2022 (as outlined above).
2. The works would be completed within 15 working days of the start date.
3. Its had concluded that previous works to the kitchen were not done to the “appropriate standard”, and it had raised these concerns with its contractor.
The resident contacted the landlord on 20 January 2022 and asked his complaint to be taken to stage 2, as he was unhappy with its stage 1 response. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 2 February 2022 and said:
1. It had inspected the resident’s property in August 2021 to discuss the “long standing repair issues” and to agree a resolution with him.
2. It had raised a work order to re lay the flooring in his property in December 2021.
3. It had decanted the resident on 4 December 2021, so it could complete works to the kitchen and flooring.
4. It confirmed the agreed works would start “next week”.
5. It had extended the resident’s stay in temporary accommodation while the works went ahead.
6. It would issue the resident with vouchers to help cover the costs of redecoration.
7. Its service had “fallen far short” of what it expected. It had found there was a lack of communication between its staff, and the resident, which had caused delays.
8. Its repairs procedures were “clearly not working”, and it was not tracking or monitoring works appropriately. As such, it planned to review its processes.
9. It apologised and offered £1,000 in compensation for its handling of the repairs, and said it had consulted the Ombudsman’s redress guidance when determining the figure.

Events after the complaints process

The resident emailed the landlord on 7 March 2022, and asked it to call him to discuss the contents of its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord responded on 9 March 2022 and said it was not “possible” for it to call him, as it needed to keep all correspondence in writing for its records.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 26 April 2022 and said it had considered his request to increase its compensation offer, but had decided the offer of £1,000 was “fair and reasonable”.
The evidence indicates that the resident moved back into his property in May 2022. The landlord agreed to extend his stay in the temporary accommodation for 2 weeks, to allow him time to decorate the property as a “goodwill gesture”.
The resident contacted this Service on 4 May 2022 and asked us to investigate his complaint. He said that he had moved back in to the property, but there were still repairs outstanding.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 June 2022 and said he wanted to accept its offer of compensation, and said some of the repairs were still outstanding. The landlord responded the same day and asked the resident to provide his bank details, so it could pay the compensation. Its response was silent on the repairs.

Assessment and findings

Relevant obligations, policies, and procedures

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance guide for residents says it has 3 categories of repair: Urgent, which it will attend to withing 5 working days; routine, which it will attend to within 25 working days; and major works, which it will attend to within 60 working days. It defines replacing kitchen units, and replastering large areas as ‘major works’.
The landlord’s decant policy states that it will temporarily decant resident’s into suitable alternative accommodation if it needs to do works that would leave the resident without basic facilities if they remained.
The landlord’s complaint policy states that it has a 2 stage complaints process, and will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 3 working days. It says stage 1 complaints will be responded to by an “appropriate officer”. This is “usually” the officer responsible for overseeing the staff delivering the service that is complained about. The policy states that it will send stage 1 and 2 complaint responses within 10 working days.

Reports of repairs, and the associated decant.

The evidence shows that the resident is unhappy about the landlord’s handling of his reports of repairs dating back to 2012. It would be unreasonable to consider events dating back to 2012, due to the passage of time. Instead, this investigation has focused on the resident’s reports of repairs in 2021, and the events leading up to him raising a complaint, and the landlord’s handling of the repairs thereafter.
It is evident that the landlord inspected the resident’s property in August 2021 to identify works needed in the kitchen and to the flooring. It is unclear what works took place at that time, as the records provided do not show any outcome of that visit. This is a failing in the landlord’s record keeping, in relation to repairs. This Service asked the landlord for information about the repairs visit from August 2021, as part of this investigation. The landlord was unable to provide more information. This supports the conclusion that the landlord’s record keeping around the repairs visit was poor, and impacted on its overall ability to resolve the issue.
Following a further inspection in December 2021, the landlord decided to temporarily decant the resident, so it could complete appropriate works. Given the nature of the works, and the disruption they would have caused, to decant the resident was appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances of the case. The landlord appropriately applied its decant policy, and sought to provide appropriate alternative accommodation in order to do the works.
The landlord’s email of 30 December 2021 indicated that it would start works at the beginning of January 2022. It is evident that this did not happen, which caused the resident further distress of being placed in temporary accommodation longer than expected. This Service has seen no evidence to indicate that the landlord contacted the resident to explain the delay, to try and manage his expectations. The lack of proactive communication about the delays, caused the resident a further inconvenience of not knowing when, or if, the repairs would start.
That the landlord did not complete a full inspection of the repairs needed until 4 January 2022, this amounts to an unreasonable delay. At that point, the resident had already experienced the inconvenience of living in a hotel for a month. That it was not more proactive in identifying a full list of works needed was unreasonable. The resident was evidently distressed at having to leave his home. This distress was increased by the lack of proactive action from the landlord to identify all repairs needed.
Following the inspection, the landlord’s follow up email of 4 January 2022 was inappropriate. That the landlord did not outline a full list of repairs it had identified was unreasonable. It simply stated the contractor would oversee the works, and was dismissive. The resident was clearly frustrated by this and asked for further clarification. Rather than set out its position in more detail, it unreasonably put the onus on the resident to confirm what repairs were agreed at the visit. This was inappropriate. It is noted that the landlord responded on 7 January 2022 with a comprehensive list of works. However, its inappropriate communication in the email preceding caused the resident frustration, and was a further failing in its handling of the matter.
The landlord’s comments in its stage 1 complaint response, of January 2022, in relation to the repairs was inappropriate. It stated the repairs should take “15 working days”, which gave important information in relation to the repairs. However, that it did not set out when it hoped the works would start was unreasonable and a failing in its handling of the matter. Given its complaint response accepted failing in its handling of the repairs, a more detailed explanation of its intentions going forward would have been appropriate.
The landlord admitted, in its stage 1 complaint response, a failing that previous works done were not the appropriate standard. The resident experienced a considerable inconvenience because of this, by needing to be decanted later on. An appropriate offer of redress would have gone some way to putting things right. That it did not offer any financial redress for its admitted failings, in its stage 1 complaint response, was inappropriate.
The stage 1 complaint response also lacked learning. The comments that the concerns would be raised with the contractor did not show a meaningful assessment of how the failings had occurred. It was also silent on what it would do to prevent similar happening again. This was a further shortcoming in its handling of the issue. The resident experienced an inconvenience of raising concerns about the landlord’s handling of the repairs, without receiving a detailed response.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response went some way to putting the above failings right. The landlord set out when the proposed works would start, and showed detailed learning about its handling of repairs up to that point. This was appropriate and evidence the landlord sought to learn from the outcomes of the case, and its shortcomings at stage 1. That the landlord advised it would review its procedures was also appropriate. The £1,000 in compensation it offered was appropriate, up to that point. That it offered redecoration vouchers, in addition to the compensation, also went some way to putting things right for the resident.
It is evident that the resident was not able to move back into his property for a further 2 months after it issued its stage 2 complaint response. That the landlord declined to increase its offer of compensation for the further inconvenience of this, was inappropriate. It is noted that the 2 week extension of the resident’s temporary accommodation, to allow him to decorate, was fair and went some way to putting right the further inconvenience he experienced. Given there was a further 2 month delay, an increased offer of compensation would have been reasonable in the circumstances.
Evidence seen as part of this investigation (minutes from void meetings) suggests the landlord had some issues in gaining access to do works at the property. However, no other evidence was submitted that supports this assessment. So, the accuracy of that claim is unverifiable. It is apparent that the landlord did explore claiming some of its costs incurred by the delays from its contractor. This supports the conclusion that the further delay were, at least in part, down to delays with its contractor. As such, it also supports the conclusion that it would have been appropriate to revisit its offer of compensation, as the landlord was responsible for overseeing the service provided by the contractor.
When the resident contacted the landlord, in June 2022, to accept its offer of compensation, he also raised a concern that repairs to the kitchen were still outstanding. The fact the landlord’s response was silent on the outstanding repairs, was inappropriate. Considering the delays, and its admitted failings, the lack of follow up on this concern was unreasonable and caused further frustration for the resident.
There were unreasonable delays in attending to repairs after the landlord was put on notice. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response lacked detailed learning, and was dismissive. It admitted failings at stage 1, but failed to offer appropriate redress. The stage 2 complaint response went some way to putting this right, and showed appropriate learning. It made an appropriate offer of compensation, considering the detriment experienced up to that point. However, it decision not to increase the redress offered, despite a further 2 month delay, was inappropriate. The lack of follow up in June 2022 about outstanding repairs is also concerning. As such, the redress the landlord offered did not fully put things right for the resident, and a series of orders are made below.

Complaint handling

When the resident raised concerns about its handling of repairs, in January 2022, the landlord logged his concerns as a complaint. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence the landlord correctly applied its complaint policy, and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code, and the landlord’s policy, states that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made.
The resident’s complaint was about the landlord’s handling of his reports of repairs. The evidence available for this investigation indicates that the officer overseeing the repairs, and inspections, also investigated the stage 1 complaint. This was inappropriate, and a failure to properly apply its complaint policy. The policy states that the complaint will be dealt with by someone who oversees the officers delivering the service complaint about. It was therefore inappropriate for the officer delivering the service complained about to respond to the complaint itself. This was a failing in the landlord’s complaint handling, and caused the resident an inconvenience.
After the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, the resident emailed in March 2022 asking for a phone call to discuss the outcome of the complaint. The landlord declined to do so, and stated everything about the complaint needed to be in writing. This was an unreasonable approach and lacked accountability. The landlord’s comments about needing a written record are noted. However, to refuse a phone call to discuss the resident’s concerns was unreasonable. Any discussion could have been confirmed in writing, and any notes taken could also be used as a record of the conversation. The landlord’s approach created an unfair complaints process for the resident.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights recommends that landlord’s “need to ensure they provide clear explanations; repeat information where needed, including in different formats”. It is evident that the landlord did not adopt this approach, by refusing to call the resident. This was an unreasonable and obstructive approach. As such, an appropriate training order is made below.
As outlined above, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response lacked learning, or a detailed assessment of its own actions in relation to the repairs. The landlord’s approach to who investigated the complaint was inappropriate. That the landlord refused to discuss its stage 2 complaint decision on the phone, was also unreasonable. As such, a series of orders are made below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs, and the associated decant.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

There were unreasonable delays in attending to repairs, after the landlord was put on notice. The landlord’s record keeping from August 2021 was poor, which impacted on its overall handling of the matter. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response lacked detailed learning, and was dismissive. It admitted failings at stage 1, but failed to offer appropriate redress. The stage 2 complaint response went some way to putting this right, and showed appropriate learning. It made an appropriate offer of compensation, considering the detriment experienced up to that point. However, it decision not to increase the redress offered, despite a further 2 month delay, was inappropriate. The lack of follow up in June 2022 about outstanding repairs is also concerning.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response lacked learning, or a detailed assessment of its own actions in relation to the repairs, and its approach to who investigated the complaint was inappropriate. That the landlord refused to discuss its stage 2 complaint decision on the phone was also unreasonable.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £1,450 in compensation, made up of:
  1. The £1,000 it offered for its handling of the repairs (if it has not already done so).
  2. A further £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repairs.
  3. £150 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
3. Instruct an appropriately qualified officer to inspect the resident’s property in relation to his concerns about outstanding repairs, and identify any works needed.
Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Considering the failings identified in this report, complete a review into its handling of repairs to identify how it can prevent similar failings happening again, with a particular focus on:
  1. Its poor communication and failure to follow up on outstanding repairs.
  2. Lack of proactive communication about delays.
2. The outcome of the review should be shared with this Service, also within 8 weeks.
3. Conduct training with its complaint handling staff, with a particular focus on:
  1. Offering appropriate redress to the full detriment experienced by a resident (including re visiting offers of compensation, due to a further delay).
  2. The recommendations set out in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on attitudes, respect, and rights.